Hyer v. County of Madison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hyer v. County of Madison

244 A.D. 859

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D. 859 (Hyer v. County of Madison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hyer v. County of Madison, 244 A.D. 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff in one of these cases is a resident of TompMñs county, and the other is a resident of Cortland etiUUty. Each plaintiff brought an action in his own coxinty against the county of Madison oh account of injuries received because of alleged defects iú a highway of Madison County. Both plaintiffs were riding in the Samé vehicle. Madison, cotinty moved to change the place Of trial to Madison County because the accident Occurred there, and for the convenience of witnesses, and the Special Term denied the motion. This Was a proper exercise of discretion On the papers presented. Orders unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, in one action. Present — Hill, P. J;, Rhodes, McNamee, Ctapser and Heffeman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiff in one of these cases is a resident of TompMñs county, and the other is a resident of Cortland etiUUty. Each plaintiff brought an action in his own coxinty against the county of Madison oh account of injuries received because of alleged defects iú a highway of Madison County. Both plaintiffs were riding in the Samé vehicle. Madison, cotinty moved to change the place Of trial to Madison County because the accident Occurred there, and for the convenience of witnesses, and the Special Term denied the motion. This Was a proper exercise of discretion On the papers presented. Orders unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, in one action. Present — Hill, P. J;, Rhodes, McNamee, Ctapser and Heffeman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyer-v-county-of-madison-nyappdiv-1935.